Top

Ryo-Hazuki

Trainee
CRank: 5Score: 33380

Bias Against PS3 Will Clearly Show Feb. 2009

  It just really sucks when certain websites clearly show biased views against anything of their opposite preference of console especially the PS3. There's so many stupid and ridiculous statements that have been made by numerous websites whether its a blog or so-called professional reviewers. So I wont go back into the history of this nonsense, but I will talk about the present.

 I happened to take part in the Killzone 2 multiplayer beta and I must say that this game is truly amazing on all fronts. It's pretty hard for games to impress me nowadays but this game truly did. The graphics are stunning, but its not about the graphics to me, its about game play which also happens to be on par with the graphics in a sense of the "wow" factor. From the guns to movement, the game has added true realism which sets this game apart from any fps. This is not a preview so I will keep this information in general.  Let me just say, Killzone 2 is game that Sony can finally say is on the lvl or if not higher than a Gears of War in a sense of greatness as a whole. Its that GOOD, matter of fact its that GREAT. Killzone 2 is one of those games when you pick up and play, there's just nothing really bad you can say about it, basically you would say its a definite AAA title rather it's your cup of tea or not.

Well in the latest Gamespot hands-on or the "fat guy" in the 1up show, if you would have never played the beta you would think this game is just average with pretty graphics. Gamespot said "environments are static with no movable objects" in the mp beta hands-on, well anybody who's in the beta can tell you that was just a flat out LIE. Just about everything is movable, so I don't get why Gamespot made that statement. The "fat guy" in 1up's latest show criticized Killzone 2 for having realistic controls with realistic guns, lol. In opposition, read IGN's latest hands-on. They are praising Killzone 2 on every single angle but if you compare Gamespot and IGN's previews, you would think they are commenting on two different games.. Is this a sign come Feb. 2009? Anybody who's in the beta can tell you definitely that Killzone 2 is the next big thing but some of these websites are going to try to shoot down Sony's upcoming AAA title. Killzone 2 isn't a game that can go both ways with views, this game is no doubt a great game. Some may ask, why our views cant go both ways? What I mean by this is the general concessus for KZ2 should be very positive in a unbiased world. Reviewers have the right to critique KZ however they want, but don't lie about it. I welcome cold hard facts that are positive and negative about the game but so far the negative has been nothing but lies. Some of these reviewers do not want Sony to have their own "Halo" title. Come February 2009, we will clearly see who's bias against Sony and who's not. Rest assure, somebody will try to shoot down Killzone 2, its bound to happen and that's just sad.

The story is too old to be commented.
Columbo4487d ago

So let me get this straight. If people don't like the game and don't give it a 10/10 review, then they are biased against the PS3 and they want it to fail? LMFAO!

"Killzone 2 isn't a game that can go both ways with views, this game is no doubt a great game." Reviews are, by definition, an OPINION. Some people won't like the style of this game, but that doesn't mean they are biased against anything. They just don't enjoy the game as much as someone else. That's their right as a reviewer.

I'm in the beta too. The graphics are amazing, however I don't think the online ranks up there with a CoD4, Resistance 2, or Halo 3. Does that make me biased and do I want to this game and PS3 to fail? Hell no. Your logic in this blog is very fanboyish.

4486d ago
Ryo-Hazuki4486d ago

What I meant by " views cant go both ways" is that you cant deny that KZ2 is good. Reviewers can critique it however they want but tell me, why are they lying about it? If you are in the beta, please explain this statement by Gamespot "environments are static with no movable objects"?

RadientFlux4484d ago

I agree you can't use a single game to judge if a reviewer is bias or not. Most reviewers have their own gaming preferences. Honesty if reviewers were bias or paid off by a third-party the reviews would be more negative and not off by a few marks.

I can't judge on Killzone2 as I am not part of the beta, but no matter what the reviewers say I'll be giving it a try February.

GiantEnemyCrab4483d ago (Edited 4483d ago )

"What I meant by " views cant go both ways" is that you cant deny that KZ2 is good."

Yes I can deny it because I haven't played it and I think most people haven't played it, especially the SP. If anything this proves your bias that anything less than someone saying the game is good means they have some alterior motive.

Spydiggity4483d ago

couldn't agree with you more.

this is how bad fanboyism has gotten. you can't criticize ANYTHING on ps3 or you are bias. the stores are intentionally screwing themselves outta profits because they are bias. there is no logic to it, and don't try to reason with them. you will just get frustrated.

let me give you a big example that will, i'm sure, get me banned for a few days. and i won't say anything fanboy at all.

example: i have a ps3, and i was talking to hiphopgamer and he told me that resistance 2 is the best game he's ever played. so...i bought it. and i have to admit, it is a fun game. and the scale is nice. but...when you walk up to surfaces, foliage, etc...it comes clear that is game is NOT the graphically amazing master piece the fanboys made it out to be. in fact, i'd go as far as to say, resistance 2 (being the pinnacle of ps3 gaming), doesn't even come close to the quality of the source engine (which was a product of 2004). resistance simply is NOT a good looking game. it has it's moments. i certainly love the way the enemies take bullets and collapse (but again...that's in the source engine games (like Left 4 Dead which does it better than any game i've played)), and i love the blood splatter on the walls behind the enemies you're shooting; but graphically this game is not impressive and it definitely doesn't touch gears of war. now i know i'll be accused of being a fanboy, but to be honest, i think gears looks dated too. and the experience was just kinda eh.

but my point is, ps3 has just been putting out inferior products...plain and simple. and even though there are probably a million fanboys that make unfounded claims like it's the best system, and uncharted is the best looking game of all time...it just isn't true. the truth is reflective of the sales. these games don't sell well because they aren't very good... NOT because ppl at gamestop encourage ppl to buy 360 games. 360 just has the better library AND the better online community.

I don't have any reason to favor 360. i'm not bias towards it. i am a gamer that owns both systems and i want good games on both. the difference is, the 360 has come through for me many many times and the ps3 has left me disappointed in almost every case. the exception to that being Ratchet and Clank and Super Stardust HD. and i guess i can't complain about PSN because as so many ps3 fanboys have mentioned time and time again...IT'S FREE. but...that network is so unbelievably slow. it feels like a very good dial up connection when i'm downloading on there. and don't tell me that's limited to me...it's everyone i've ever asked. but like i said...it's free..which it should be...it NEEDS to be

so...just watch for this comment to be banned even though it's completely on topic and has nothing to do with fanboyism. it's just the facts of gaming. and the next fact is...there is a bias on N4G, and anyone who's ever not praised sony for being gods and gotten their comment banned knows this. but the bias is in favor of the ps3...and that's why insanely stupid articles that talk about 360 being favored are allowed on this site. that's why i've had neutral comments get banned. that's why you can see the most outlandish anti MS comments not get banned.

derek4481d ago

Reviews that are paid for are not just opinion, they are opinions given to aid consumers in making a decision. You cant just show up and say you dislike/like a game, that just would not fly. You have to be able to articulate well defined reasons, based on a criteria by which you judge all games, why you dont like a game and would not recommend it to the consumer. Thats why making false crticisms that have no basis in fact (KZ2 has no movable objects)or holding a game to a different standard than you do others (RS2 doesnt innovate)will cause people to question your motives.If all anyone wanted was opinions about a game you could look on any game message board, there is plenty of opinions to be found.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4481d ago
PantherDST4484d ago

There is little doubt that fanboyism, on both sides, has infiltrated the reviewer arena. It is especially sad when reviewers forgo providing an honest review in order to promote one console by bashing another’s consoles game regardless of the games merits. I own both systems and like to play both. Sure I have a favorite system but I try not to let that bias my decision when referring a game to friends.

GiantEnemyCrab4483d ago (Edited 4483d ago )

So you heard it here first folks! If you don't like KZ2 you are automatically biased! =)

Ryo-Hazuki4483d ago

LOL guys all im trying to say is that if your going to say something bad about ANY game, make sure the negative is a fact not a lie. I own all 3 consoles and to call me a fanboy is just dumb. Every game should be treated equal with facts of both positive and negative backing it up. I thank some of you guys for actually understanding what the point behind the blog entry was about.

If you guys were in the beta, theres just no way you could miss the "no movable objects". Its virtually impossible unless you played the beta for 2 mins.

rekonizakilla4483d ago

So you heard it here first folks! If you don't like KZ2 you are automatically biased! =)
I don't think anyone's suggesting that but if you had played the beta you would be impressed too. I remember reading that there was no jump button in kz2 and that too was a lie. Personally I was a bit disappointed with gow2 but I can admit at least that it's a fekin good game. finally what game looks or plays better in the beta than it does on a disc?......... None so I think it's fair to say that kz2 will look awesome, and play just as good. There are a few things on the beta what you can't access like the gun turrets,or even the cover system and certain weapons so we can even expect a major improvement for the multiplayer mode.A game like this doesn't come around very often so stick your fanboyism to one side and try this game when you get a chance.

GiantEnemyCrab4483d ago

Thanks for the reply guys. I just wonder who defines what is a valid complaint and what isn't? An outright "lie" you can easily spot but someone who complains about something like the controls is purely subjective. You might love them and cry "BS!" but that doesn't make the complaint biased.

I'm totally with you that unwarranted slams on game are lame but I see PS3 fanboys calling biased more times than not when something negative is given to the PS3 and it loses it's validity much like the boy crying wolf.

Alcon4483d ago

I think you misunderstood what he tried tod say. If I'm not wrong he says that he has no problem if there are negative reviews or comments on certain points of the game, but what 'angers' him is to see that some website are making negative comments on things that are not true (like the static thing). I don't think he meant that all reviews should be positive, but that if they put some negative in it that it should at least be factual and true. Well that's what i understood from his post (I did not say it was my view, but I'm 'defending' him, because some are immediatly on the offensive against him for no reason, and I found I had to 'counterbalance' things here lol).

Peace :)

Columbo4483d ago

I see your point, and I agree that he was probably trying to say what you did. But having a factual error in a review does not automatically make the review biased. I read a review that said that Insomniac made Uncharted (wrong...Its Naughty Dog), but that doesn't mean they are biased.

I'm in the beta and I don't run around trying to move objects. I run around trying to kill people. When you throw a grenade at the wall, it is destroyed and pieces go everywhere. But I haven't tried running through that pile of debris to see if it moves. Or try to push tables over and stuff like that. I won't be near my PS3 till Saturday, so I guess I'll have to double check on this then.

But I think the point of this is: Let's wait till we read the actual reviews before we say someone who doesn't like the game is biased. If they give the game a bad score, that doesn't mean they are biased. It just means they don't like that type of game, or there were some issues with the game. If they have some guy who hates the PS3 and FPS review the game and give it a 4/10, then they are biased.

Ryo-Hazuki4483d ago

@ Columbo

Look at it as a prediction of things to come. I feel SOME reviewers will try to knock it, especially with nonsense lies. I think "fanboyism" will have its hand in it unfortunately. Anybody can recognize a good game even if you dont like it right? I just feel these are signs to come, and people should come back to this blog entry when Feb. 2009 occurs, and I say I told you so.

smurfie44483d ago

The problem isn't in recognizing a problem with a ps3 exclusive. The problem is heavily scrutinizing a ps3 exclusive while other games get a free pass. An example being killzone 2. The main criticism this game has been getting is for being generic, as in not doing anything new. If this detracts from the score than the same should be applied to other games that don't do anything new. The point is being fair and giving credit where it is do despite console preference. In the end a good game is a good game no matter if it's on the wii, 360 or ps3.

Show all comments (27)
The story is too old to be commented.